'A most singular elect vessel of God': Bishop Bull on Protestant reverence for the Blessed Virgin Mary

From a sermon by Bishop Bull (d.1710), entitled 'The Blessed Virgin's low and exalted condition', on the text Luke 1:48-49. Bull, noting the Church of England's reverence for the Blessed Virgin, provides an explicitly and inherently Protestant understanding of this reverence:

We think and speak most respectfully of her, and do not ordinarily mention her name without a preface or epithet of honour, as "the holy," "the blessed" Virgin, and the like. We do, by the appointment of our Church, sing or rehearse in our daily service her excellent Magnificat; and thereby we testify our assent to, and complacence in, those singular favours that God is therein said to have bestowed on her; and, together with her, we finally return the praise and glory of all to God alone. We celebrate two annual festivals in her memorial, the Feasts of her Annunciation and Purification. And if we could think of any other honour that we could do her, without dishonouring God the Father, and His eternal Son, we would most willingly yield it to her. Wherefore the Papists* are themselves egregious calumniators, when they charge us Protestants, that we are beatæ Virginis conviciatores, "reproachers of the blessed Virgin." We defy their charge; we honour the blessed Virgin as a most singular elect vessel of God; as one in the highest degree of all mere mortals honoured by God: but therefore, we will not yield her any of that honour that is peculiar to God; for God Himself hath told us, that He "will not give His glory to another". She saith indeed, that "all generations should call her blessed;" but not that any generation should call upon her to bless them.

*This note is a regular reminder that while laudable Practice retains, for the purposes of accuracy, such terminology when quoting from historical documents, this is not at all to accept its contemporary usage. Contemporary use of this and related terms for fellow Christians is unacceptable and contrary to charity.

Comments

Why I support the ordination of women: a High Church reflection

A number of commenters on this blog have asked about my occasional expressions of support for the ordination of women to all three orders. With some hesitation, I have decided to post a summary of my own views on this matter. The hesitation is because I have sought on this blog to focus on issues and themes which can unify those who identify with or have respect (grudging or otherwise!) for what we might term 'classical' Anglicanism (the Anglicanism of the Formularies and - yes - of the Old High Church tradition). Some oppose the ordination of women (and I have friends and colleagues who do so, Anglo-Catholic, High Church, and Reformed Evangelical). Some of us support it (again, friends and colleagues covering a wide range of theological traditions). Below, I have organised my thinking around 5 points (needless to say, no reference to Dort is implied). 1. The Declaration for Subscription required of clergy in the Church of Ireland states: (6) I promise to submit ...

How the Old High tradition continued

Charles Gore's 1914 letter to the clergy of his diocese, ' The Basis of Anglican Fellowship ', can be regarded as a classical expression of the Prayer Book Catholic tradition. A key part of the letter - entitled 'Romanizing in the Church of England' - addressed the "Catholic movement", questioning beliefs and practices within it which tended to "a position which makes it very difficult for its extremer representatives to give an intelligible reason why they are not Roman Catholics". Gore provides the outlines of an alternative account and experience of catholicity within Anglicanism, defined by three characteristics. What is particularly interesting about these characteristics is their continuity with the older High Church tradition. Indeed, the central characteristic as set out by Gore was integral to High Church claims over centuries: To accept the Anglican position as valid, in any sense, is to appeal behind the Pope and the authority of t...

1928 practices and the 1979 book: unthinking conservatism or popular piety?

Those responsible for Earth & Altar - a new blog emanating from a group within TEC - are to be congratulated for an excellent contribution to wider Anglican discussion and debate. The commitment to "an expansively conceived credal orthodoxy as fully compatible with LGBTQ inclusion, gender equality, and racial justice" is an important part of a wider retrieval of creedal orthodoxy within what we might call the post-liberal generation. It is in this spirit that I want to respond to a recent post on the site by Andrew McGowan , Dean of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale and Professor of Anglican Studies at Yale Divinity School. Against the background of another round of "ill-defined" liturgical revision in TEC, he understandably urges that a fuller reception of the 1979 BCP should occur before further reforms. In doing so, however, he takes aim at what he describes as "clinging to the ritual structures of 1928" while using the text of 1979. We ...

laudable Practice

Search This Blog